Printable View
I find it hard to believe a nation cant be called a democracy just cause women and slaves cant vote. The power is still in the people.
America has always been a democracy(since clonnial days).
Sure no modern democracies have been at war, im guessing, but by that standard there never will be. In 200 years they will come up with some new standard of democracy and say ours is false and corrupt.
That is a good argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Germany wasn't even Nazi Germany before Hitler gained power ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerReborn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Hes saying when his party had won a majority, but Hitler hadnt become a dictator yet, I believe.
Ahh but they never had a najority, they had for an alliance with some other party. Then they did what was 'needed'. All in a lawful context.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
ceasar you focus on the fact that I use 'crap' as a word, yet you do not enter my argument. The Allies and Finland were at war. WAR... The entire point here. There would have been trouble had a Finn serviceman and an Allied serviceman met in any place but a neutral country or on the seas. Kills don't make the war, the politicians do, and in this case they did just that. The potential for killing was there, plenty enough, that it didn't happen is of no consequence, just a matter of chance.
About Milosevic... There were several parties as far back as 1990, and Milosevic fairly was President of Serbia for the two terms he could be, then transferred to the precidency of Yugoslavia. There was fraud in local elections (which he said there wasn't) and that lead to his loss of popular support (meaning his majority), not because he was an unconstitutional leader. He tried with all means to stay in power, but when it came to his own election it seems his victories were indeed fair. Thus the man was democratically elected in a democracy with a parliament where everybody was elected and of several parties. Is that not a democracy? A foul one it seems but hardly different in is setup as the one that is there now. In fact they have made no changes to the constitution after his fall, and we now recognize it as a democracy... So is it really down to how much we like the leader of the country in question?
No.
Slobodan Milošević was first elected President of Serbia by the National Assembly in 1989.
On the 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in January 1990, the delegation of Serbia led by Milošević insisted on the reversal of 1974 Constitution policy that empowered the republics and rather wanted to introduce a policy of "one person, one vote", which would empower the majority population, the Serbs. This caused the Slovenian and Croatian delegations (led by Milan Kučan and Ivica Račan, resp.) to leave the Congress in protest and marked a culmination in the rift of the Yugoslav ruling party.
Milošević presided over the transformation of the League of Communists of Serbia into the Socialist Party of Serbia (July 1990) and the adoption of a new Serbian constitution (September 1990) providing for the direct election of a president with increased powers. Milošević was subsequently re-elected president of the Serbian Republic in the direct elections of December 1990 and December 1992.
In the first free parliamentary elections of December 1990, Milošević's Socialist Party won 80.5% of the vote. The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo largely boycotted the election, effectively eliminating even what little opposition Milošević had. Milošević himself won the presidential election with even higher percentage of the vote.
Miloševać's rise to power was followed by a growth of nationalism in all the former Yugoslavian republics following the collapse of communist governments throughout eastern Europe. Notably, Slovenians elected a nationalist government under Milan Kučan, and the Croatians did the same with Franjo Tuđman. The main Bosnian politicians were also nationally oriented, only those in Macedonia didn't support any overt national agendas.
The socialist Yugoslavia was at the time governed by an eight-member Presidency where four members were inclined to support Slobodan Milošević's ideas (such as the proclamation of a state of emergency), while four were inclined to oppose it. As the critical decisions would all end in a stalemate, the head of state was rather dysfunctional. Milošević exerted considerable influence over Yugoslav generals such as the Chief of Staff Veljko Kadijević and tried to use the army presence to pressure the other four Presidency members into compliance, but ultimately failed
So , you have a Federal state called Yugoslavia , one day , the president of Serbia (who was elected by a communist assembly) , dear Slovo , wanted to be the ruler of all Yugoslavia , what he did ? he "removed" the rights of the minorities and was "elected" president . the minorities (Slovenians and Croatians) seceded and went to war ! - there you have it - "a war betweens democracies"...................
Well, those options are fully open to a democracy.
He can't help it that the Albanians boycot the election. Yes he is not a nice man, and he bullied his way around, but as you see the ploy with the army failed. So it had no effect.
Also, I was talking about the war between NATO and Yugoslavia.
Rome vs Carthage *3
Pretty sure the EB team consider a lot of the Celtic & Gallic tribes to have been democracies & they warred between each other & with Rome.
There was very nearly a state of war between NZ & France in 1985.
Greece vs Turkey over Cyprus in 1974.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Athens was a democracy. 19th century US was also a democracy (Well, with modern definition it was a republic). With modern definition of democracy a state who accepts slavery and deprives women of voting wouldn't count as democracy. In future, probably, today's definition of democracy will be regarded as unacceptable. Think of some possible cases: teenager voting, immigrants voting, convicts voting, representative democracy, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
[QUOTE=PyrrhusofEpirus]Greece vs Turkey over Cyprus in 1974.
Well ?
just read (from wikipedia) -
In the 1950s and 1960s, Greece continued to develop slowly with grants and loans through the U.S.A Marshall Plan, and later through growth in the tourism sector. In 1967, the Greek military seized power in a coup d'état and overthrew the right-wing government of Panayiotis Kanellopoulos and established what became known as the Régime of the Colonels. The Central Intelligence Agency was suspected to be involved in the coup. The new regime in Athens was supported by the U.S.A. In 1973, the régime abolished the Greek monarchy. In 1974, dictator Papadopoulos denied help to the USA and a second coup soon followed, once again raising suspicions that the US, through Kissinger's long arm was involved. Colonel Ioannides was appointed as the new head-of-state.
Many hold Ioannides responsible for the coup against President Makarios of Cyprus, which was considered a pretext for the first Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the resulting crisis between Greece and Turkey. The Cyprus events and the outcry following the bloody suppression of Athens Polytechnic uprising led to the implosion of the military régime. A charismatic exiled politician, Konstantinos Karamanlis, returned from Paris as interim prime minister and later gained re-election for two further terms at the head of the conservative Nea Dimokratia party. In 1975, following a referendum to confirm the deposition of King Constantine II, a democratic republican constitution came into force
Uch , a year from democracy , damn ~;) ~;) no matter , it was close... ~;) ~;) :book: :book: ~:cheers:
Preposterous. Apartheid is a much, much later idea in South African politics. The Boer republics of Transvaal and Oranje Vrystaat were neither for or against apartheid, simply because the idea itself did not exist yet. These nations had elected executive and legislative branches of the government; native Africans had no voting rights since they were not Boers and therefore not citizens of a Boer republic; besides that, African tribes had been driven off of Boer territory by the Voortrekkers and either lived around the area of modern Lesotho or further north; and their governmental form is the foundation for the modern state of South Africa's system of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
~Wiz
People have posted numerous occasions when democracies have gone to war with other democracies and each time they do so, you come up with some reason why they are not 'real' democracies. The United States is a real democracy as are the other examples given. Democracies have gone to war with others democracies, exactly as the evidence suggests.
This is pointless!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
"Much much later idea in South African politics" hhhmmm
again from wikipedia -
The first recorded use of the word "apartheid" (International Phonetic Alphabet [əˈpɑː(r)teɪt] or [-taɪt] in English and [aˈpartheid] in Afrikaans) was in 1917 during a speech by Jan Smuts, who became Prime Minister of South Africa in 1919. In some ways apartheid was an extension of the segregationist laws implemented by previous white minority governments. Examples include the 1913 Land Act and the various workplace "colour bars". These laws were required to comply with the peace treaty signed between the Boer republics and the British Empire at the end of the second Anglo-Boer war.
Hhhmmmmmmmmmm... the power of simple facts ~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
"Evidence" aha?!?! ~:confused: so , the English attacked Mexico in 1862 is evidence ? OK , it is pointless ,
No one is forcing you to post...you know...democracy , but the next time that I will post , first I will check if it is OK with you to bring my "evidence"...
"The French had landed in Mexico (along with Spanish and English troops) five months earlier on the pretext of collecting the debts from the newly elected government (of democratic and Indian) President Juarez."Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
EDIT; Oh wait, that doesn't count because women weren't allowed to vote in Britain at the time!
And it doesn't count because it's only an intervention!
And it doesn't count because Mexico wasn't a stable democracy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Yes !!!! and they say that "people never learn" ~:cheers:
Btw - ask the women what is a democracy... ~:cheers: again
The use of democracy should quite simply be abolished from 1915 and backwards... That is what you say?
Ok we are down to purely 20th and 21st century wars between states that has universal suffrage, is/was a determined democracy (meaning it had a 'long' tradition of democracy), had a big enough butcher's bill, didn't do an intervention or occupation but had outright invasion with conquest in mind.
Hmm... how many countries actually fill the bill for democracy under these rules? I mean if India isn't a democracy (openly lauded in both east and west as the largest democracy in the world), then I take it we are down to western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada. Japan is controlled by the industry, Pakistan never had any right to call itself a democracy, the eastern European democracies are still young and could be unstable. Yugoslavia apparently is simply not a democracy despite universal suffrage, popular and multi party votes.
But think about it for a moment. Universal suffrage... Universal. Universal means all, everybody, everything. So when immigrants don't get a vote it can't be truly universal, and teenagers? Heck, they can be thrown in jail but not vote, in some countries they can drive cars but not vote, in some countries they can buy liquor but not vote. This list could go on as in some countries convicts can't vote either. Universal it can't be, we haev more than enough exceptions.
So in the end we have 0 countries that ever or now fit the picture of a democracy, and obviously that will create a case of 0 dem vs dem wars.
Give me a break.
You did not read it , so again
from Wikipedia -
The democratic peace theory claims that empirical evidence shows that democracies never or almost never make war against each other. One example is a study of all wars from 1816 to 1991 where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle and democracy was defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males. The study found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. However, this theory remains controversial in some circles and is the subject of much academic research and debate.
Democracies are sometimes slow to react when in war situations, because of the bureaucratic and legislative requirements for making decisions. In a democracy, the legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before hostilities can be commenced or joined, although sometimes the executive has some power to take the initiative while keeping the legislature informed. Further, if conscription is instituted, people can protest it. Monarchies and dictatorships can in theory act immediately, but often do not; and historic monarchies generally also issued declarations of war. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies historically have been generally able to maintain their security
Please , some modesty... it is all in the eye of the viewer
There is 1 thing left to do , asking you - WHAT IS A DEMOCRACY ??????? but , alas , you want a break...takt it !!!
Obviously not a godgiven fact.Quote:
However, this theory remains controversial in some circles and is the subject of much academic research and debate.
Further, you have yourself added to what Wikipedia says: Women voting and stability of democracy.
That, as I mentioned earlier has confined our 'study' to the 20th and 21st century. A century where the democracies have been scared of outright war and has been confined to a large part to the two big ones or fighting against seceeding colonies.
And again, Yugoslavia was and still is a democracy. It was ruled by a strong and despicable ruler, but he was well liked in Serbia for most of his time. Even when he was finally ousted it was not because he lost decisively. He was kicked out before the second round of election that he was expected to win because the lesser candidate's voters would vote for him rather than the opposition leader.
So NATO vs Yugoslavia was certainly Dem vs Dem. Or rather, lots of Dems vs 1 Dem.
Concerning the Greece vs. Turkey in 1974 over Cyprus : We did not fight Greece over that. If there were any minor conflicts, they can not be a direct struggle between Greece and Turkey. Our troops had landed to ensure the survival of Northern Cypriot Turks that were severely threatened by EOKA and the Rum. As a consequence, we were implied an embargo that seriously brought a halt to economic structure of Turkey.
As I said in my previous post, I still see Democracy Vs. Democracy topic pointless. I do not think we could benefit from such a discussion..
The thread has done a good job of illustrating that democracies/elected representative republics rarely war against one another.
On the definitions issue...as much as I support women's suffrage, deplore slavery and the like, I think using an early 21st century definition is a bit too much. The U.S. has had an elected democratic republican govt. since its inception. There were notable limitations, true, but the citizenry voted in a largely representative way even though females and slaves were excluded. Therefore, free multiparty elections with wide suffrage without religious bounds would probably qualify in most cases. This of course assumes that the elected representatives actually ruled, particularly with respect to foreign affairs, rather than being powerless. I'm hazy on some of the constitutional monarchies and exactly when each shifted to state actions being taken by the elected, rather than by the monarchs.
Serbia is an interesting case, since its former nationalistic fervor harkens back to others that drove toward war (and none too flattering.) It is one where the nationalistic drive of one group alienated the rest and fractured the state. So that poses some problems, as only a portion was left, it no longer represented the whole. The nationalism actually drove genocide. That brought in other democracies in attacking an aggressive genocidal Serbian govt/military that at the time was supported by the majority of the Serbian population..
The U.S. Civil War indeed shares an aspect with Serbian conflict(s), in that both were civil wars, and neither really represented the full nation at the start. The difference is that a new state of Serbia, rather than the original nation, was one participant. In that regard it might fail the "too new" test.
And because before XX century only USA was a democracy :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Lack of democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Again I ask - what is a democracy ?
If the majority decide to abolish the civil rights of the minority , it is still a democracy ? you can tell me , and many posters did , that the answer is yes , just because the majority took the decision . now he who think like this have no knowledge about the subject . if the Israeli parliament will decide to send the Israeli-Arab citizens to Jordan , how you will define Israel ? a democracy ? why not ? the majority took the decision.... well ?
"the most dangerous enemy to our truth and freedom is the consolidated majority , yes , the mighty liberal and consolidated majority" (Henric Ibsen) .
"Democracy is just an experiment in government , the problem is that we are just counting the votes instead of weighing it" (William Ralph Inge) .
"Democracy is a bad use of statistics" (louis Burje) .
"The possibility that a peasant can be a king dos not make the kingdom , a democracy" (Woodrow Wilson) .
Ah - that is the best - "The ballot is stronger then the bullet" (Abraham Lincoln) .
~:cheers:
My goodness.
When I talk about the NATO vs Yugoslavia war, that was in 98, I do not talk about the conflic that broke the larger Yugoslavia apart. That comflic is simply too complex in reality as more than political motives were at stake there.
No the comflic I'm talking about is the repression of the militaristic Albanians in Kosovo. Do not kid yourself, they were nasty people themselves, using terror (and have since done the same in both Albania and Macedonia). But since they were basically the only representatives of the Kosovo Albanians we made war on Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). The Albanians were not without voting rights, but they were angry that they had lost their autonomy and was policed heavily (breaches of human rights were of couse done and not in small numbers), but they could still vote for the various election.
It is much the same as if West Virginia got policed heavily by Federal units, people were not treated with much respect by them, but the West Virginians could still vote for the presidential election and for the two houses. So would the USA not be a democracy still despite the bad treatment ofthe West Virginians?
A democracy does not need to have democratic values to be a democracy.
I am not sure Yugoslavia in 1998 qualifies as a democracy. Here's the Human Rights Watch report on prospective elections in 1997:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/yugo...79.htm#P49_974
One line summary: "The conditions for free and fair elections do not exist."
For a democracy to function, the government has to refrain from harassing the opposition (Milosevic jailed his main opponent at one stage), restricting the media and annulling elections the outcome of which it does not like. IIRC, Milosevic was subsequently toppled by mass pro-democracy demonstrations.
Quite correct... the power of simple fact is indeed demonstrated in the way you have just destroyed your own point.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
The Boer republics had lost the war, you see, and this treaty was superimposed upon them by the British after the Second Boer War. Therefore these are politics that came into existence after the Boer republics lost their right of pure self-government -- which they had fought for in two wars.
A point you have missed with your simple reliance on an open-source encyclopedia is that the British had control of the entire territory of modern South Africa plus Namibia -- not to forget Rhodesia, which included the Zulu heartland. Modern South Africa and Namiba formed the Suid-Afrikaanse Unie. Therefore, the native tribes which had lived outside of the Boer republics were now under the jurisdiction of the British, just like the Boers themselves.
As a result, your argumentation that the apartheid was a policy of the Boers before they were entered into the Unie -- by force -- falls apart.
Besides, if people insist on seeing Athens as the world's first democracy, then any argumentation in which a nation is required to have women's suffrage to be considered democratical is simply invalid.
~Wiz
I think Kraxis has made a solid point. Using the universal suffrage lever, you can find a rational for rejecting virtually any democracy outside of a handful of first world nation’s covering a period of only 40 or 50 years. Within that time frame I don’t think you have an effective sample on which to build a useful model.
In particular I can’t help but feel that what has really happened is that the cold war and in potential for nuclear war simply suppressed most major wars(thus allowing for more wiggle room on what makes a war); while at the same time one side of that alliance was largely composed of most of the states that would qualify a democracies under more stringent definitions being offered here.
What is the supposed mechanism to account for why an aggressive or expanding democracy that would otherwise consider declaring war on a non-democracy, to suddenly come to a different conclusion in the case of a democratic rival.
The US may not have launched major wars against Europe in the last 40 years, but historically it certainly had little difficulty suppressing or overturning elections in the 3rd world or supporting dictators as part cold-war era containment (or earlier 19th imperialism). At what point would democracy vs. democracy restraint kick-in? The theory has certainly not stopped Democracies from suppressing nascent democracies form developing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
As you see the military junta gave it's place to democracy in 23 July 1974 (Day of Democracy), in the middle of the war with Turkey. All political imprisoned sat free and all political parties, including communist, were allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In this way of thinking, I could say that Greece, was simply try to fulfil the will of the vast majority (81.8%) of the the population, to join with their motherland. Greece hadn't the intention to harm the Turkish minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Sorry to disappoint you, but turkish invesion for the survival of cypriot turks was an excuse, like the one I stated above.
Well; let's keep politics out of this eh? Turkey is going to have to acknowledge Cyprus anyways if they want to get their asses into the EU.
~Wiz